User talk:Kilmer-san/Archive 1

Joint (building)
Hello! You probably noticed the medcab case is closed because our deletionist buddy is not responding. So, I would encourage you to make the changes you proposed and let's see if he has the chutzpah to tag that, after even you and I are in agreement.

Best, --Achim (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note: I just removed the tags and the guy left that alone this time, but I have not replaced the text with your proposed changes. I'll leave that to you because there are notes in between the references now and the text you proposed and I don't want to mess that up on you. So feel free to insert that stuff when you have a moment. Best, --Achim (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good job, thanks! --Achim (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, You have posted a picture of a 1978 Takamine guitar onto Wikipedia. I own a Takamine TW-18R from the same era and was wondering if you knew how much it was worth. (its in mint condition). Thnx Crossy 26 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Water hammer
While the bits about the work are not wrong, they are not very helpful either. Water hammer is fundamentally a pressure phenomenon, and an unsteady one at that. Bernoulli's equation assumes steady flow, and as the magnitude of the pressure pulse is proportional to the velocity, this shows that Bernoulli's equation (which would make it the square of the velocity) is not the governing one. Once again, I am at home, without a text book.

I put something on the disussion for the water hammer along these lines. Can we continue there? Thanks. Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing a question without answering it
The question about what temperature to use when evaluating properties was simply removed from the Psychrometrics article. The question remains, it was just removed. If there is certainty about the temperature to use, then why not change the question mark to a period? If there is not certainty about the temperature to use, then why bury the question? -Ac44ck (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflagration
Several buildings or large areas are not necessary for conflagurations. See the following definitions:
 * a destructive fire, usually an extensive one (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)
 * a very intense and uncontrolled fire (WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.)

The main text was taken from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (modified to avoid copyright violation). I can add references to the article in one or two days. Best regards, Ufim (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seismic analysis links
Hi Kilmer-san. From Seismic analysis, I trimmed the following 'See also' section links:


 * Seismic performance and Seismic performance analysis are going to be merged into seismic analysis &mdash; no need for a circular pathway.
 * Earthquake Protector is due to be deleted in the near future (the inventor created the article to promote his patent); it's not really an important aspect of seismic analysis in any case, and doesn't fit as a 'see also'.
 * Earthquake Performance Evaluation Tool is a double redirect to Earthquake simulation, which is already in the 'see also' section.
 * NCREE] and EERI I removed to head off the 'see also' turning into a list of links to every organization doing earthquake research in some capacity.

I've been doing some cleanup of articles related to earthquake engineering lately; we've had a problem user who was engaged in extensive plagiarism and self-promotion. I've been keeping a set of rough notes about what I've been doing at User:TenOfAllTrades/Shustov. If you're knowledgeable in these areas or just want to give some of my work a second look, you should be able to find everything there. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Project management
Hi, I just reinstated two images you removed from the project management article, because I just started a discussion on these images on the talk:project management page. If you want these images removed could you respond to the talk page first and wait for some kind of agreement first. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your respons. I have proposed (and installed) an alternative solution. I hope this suites you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Religious indoctrination
That paragraph actually came from another already existing page on Wikipedia, Indoctrination, so it isn't my own viewpoint. I found it to touch on religious indoctrination issues somehow not included in the actual religious indoctrination article, so I slightly edited it and appended it there for consistency of information across the two pages. My editing of it was so that it would be MORE neutral (as it previously made a claim about the intentions of the mentioned religious organizations). I agree that it needs to have citations added to it when someone gets to that, but I think it is general enough in its points, and I don't think it is inherently biased or controversial such as to prompt omission. Let's discuss this further here regarding the specific contents that you find questionable, and then make a decision on editing it to make it mutually agreeable.mmortal03 (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_exhaust_cleaning
Have you looked at this one? Best regards, --Achim (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I filed for mediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Kitchen_exhaust_cleaning and would welcome any input you have into the case as well as the article in general. Best, --Achim (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the article. Big improvement as a result. We'll see if he reverts your edits without comments... --Achim (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems very obvious that he is a Single-purpose_account who so far has linkspammed via quotes of himself and references to his own website. Hopefully he will read about the editing guidlines a bit more and stop reverting without discussion. Kilmer-san (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. We'll see what he does next. I suspect he will cave because now he's up against 2 people who are watching and he's not looking quite so righteous any longer. The cause he's after is not bad actually. I have worked in that business (I don't anymore...) and it is disgusting what goes on. A lot of restaurants cut corners in this, when they should be cleaning every 3 or 6 months, they might do it once every few years. Some commercial kitchens, you step one foot in and you want to immediately walk out backwards again. He's also right that there are somy shoddy cleaners out there. But how to prove that for Wikipedia??? Places I quoted and did for say $300, someone would go in there at $100. It's a mathematical impossibility to do a good job at those rates and the pix he and I uploaded show that. It's also the reason why the fire protection requirements for NFPA 96 are so tight because the committee knows that too many restaurants are disinclined to clean properly, let alone regularly. For $100, for a 10' hood with 20' of ducting plus a fan, you have basically bought a receipt, as a restaurant owner, that you could show an insurance adjuster, but you have not removed the grease properly. That's why the internal fire requirement, because everyone knows that there is no shortage of restaurants that will attempt to get away with cleaning less than what 96 calls for. The grease is also amazingly flammable. One spark and it almost explodes, it's so fast. I suppose when you consider the commercial failure rate of restaurants, perhaps it makes more sense, which is why we have codes and some municipalities who will actually enforce requirements. They surely don't all do that. But that does not mean you use Wikipedia as advertising. I had not caught on that the quote he put in there was actually his own. Nice catch on your part. It's almost hilarious! --Achim (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The X Factor (UK)
Apologies for my accidental reversion of your recent correction to The X Factor (UK) - I think I was attempting to revert the same thing but messed it up. Oscroft (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, sorry for thinking it was vandalism. Kilmer-san (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fire Sprinkler System
Youngengineering (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)you removed my link on a video and tabbed it as linkspam. Why? It is a computer generated movie of sprinkler systems and why they need surge suppression?
 * The site sells surge protectors, and uses the video to convince people that sprinkler system piping can come apart unless a surge protector is used. ' Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. " Provide a source for this claim. [WP:Sources]. Kilmer-san (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Firesleeve
What do you think of the Firesleeve article? --208.97.124.171 (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fire
Thanks for helping out with the Fire article. I'm trying to get a bunch of people together to start working on it. You interested? For starters, what do you think about some ideas here? Mr Bell ( talk ) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 1
You sprinkled"fact" tags throughout various sentences in paragraphs which had a reference at the end of the paragraph. Did you check the general reference to see if it supported what the sentences of the paragraph said? Also the possessive of "it" is "its," not "it's." Edison (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I had spot checked a few, but I'll check all of them and add back the ones that are valid. Kilmer-san (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Turns out the vast majority of these citations were in fact unsourced. Kilmer-san (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of G&L Legacy electric guitar - Leo Fender claimed as "the best instruments I have ever made"


A tag has been placed on G&L Legacy electric guitar - Leo Fender claimed as "the best instruments I have ever made" requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. E Wing (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your article seems to be for WP:FPC. Please follow the steps located on the link. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Firewall (Construction)
Hello, Thanks for taking the time to send me a message. I appreciate knowing why something has been edited/removed. I do have a specific question regarding recent edits. Under the "Innovations" section, a recent deletion removed reference to "Trufire Wall". This is a precast refrectory concrete firewall. It was removed once before with the reason given that it was not listed within the SWRi follow up program, and was blatent advertising. It has been tested through SWRi and also exceeds every requirement for firewall codes as well as outperforms every related ASTM test for firewall. This is the ONLY 4 hr rated firewall available that can withstand temps well over 2000F, 45psi water jet blast at highest temp,and UL standard 752 level 3 for projectile blast and impact resistance. All in lightweight precast panels.

How is this not "Innovation"? How is referencing the name here any different than "Durasteel"? How is "Durasteel", with links to many "Durasteel" images, not blatent advertising?

If we really are providing the public with valuable content,and not just promoting "Durasteel", then explaining innovative new firewall materials under the section "Innovations" is well within the guidelines. Please explain to me how listing "Trufirewall" is any different than listing "Durasteel".

Thank You (Opticks3 (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Opticks3, That's a good question that I believe has been answered by the deletion of the material related to Durasteel by another editor on the Firewall (Construction) article. As a comment, the purpose of WP is not to provide the public with valuable content, but to provide encyclopedic entries which meet the criteria for Notability and adequate sourcing. Welcome to WP, and let me know if I can help further. Kilmer-san (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Spam tag
Hi I edit Tree shaping article, I noticed you have added a cleanup tag, why was this added? Blackash  have a chat 06:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Combat pistol shooting
Thanks, but I think a lot of it needs to be rewritten as well as a few related pieces like the Jeff Cooper article. Any help you can give would be appreciated. Its like it vacilates between the sport and the reality aspects of it too much without giving a good definition of either.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not attack me
You attacked me first, buddy boy. And quit giving yourself a nifty title. You're nothing more than a user, just like the majority rest of the universe. Get over yourself. Have a good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.139.102 (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not attack you, please read the appropriate WP guidelines. And we're all editors.Kilmer-san (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely HATE Wikipedia because of the attitudes people like you have. "I didn't do anything wrong," and "Read the guidelines," are your most prevalent methods of asserting control over others. You have no control, sucks to be you. Since we're all editors, we're all nothings :) Way to go decentralized Wiki, way to go. My removal of the tag, and my later enforcement of said tag, was what caused this article to undergo it's renovations. A big finger up to you, Klimer! Have a good one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.139.102 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Swarm   X 19:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to send that to your friend above. Oops! Why are you warning them on your own talk page though?  Swarm   X 19:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't, that's what I put on his talk page, and when he replied he copied it to my talk page for some reason, don't know why. I suspect he's just not too WP experienced. Thanks for the help. Kilmer-san (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's your response to anyone whe does something you disagree with: They just don't know that they are morons :) And you report me for "Vandalism" pft. Nah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.139.102 (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Apr11
Warn away. If the problem is left there for three years, someone has every right to remove the tag. Because it's an empty, pointless threat. Delete the article if it's such a problem, don't bitch and moan to me about how terrible I am for seeing a problem with articles that don't follow guidelines being left as is, under the pretense that they'll be fixed EVENTUALLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.139.102 (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2011

My apologies: it's been FIVE years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.139.102 (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2011

Also you should put the maintenance tag back on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancit as well, since I'm wrong for removing it, I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.139.102 (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2011

Process Safety Management
I just wanted to point out that, although not everything on the OSHA website was created by the US Government, materials created by the US Government are generally not copyrighted. So, the user who added quotes taken directly from the OSHA website may not have violated copyrights.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_Safety_Management&diff=prev&oldid=426471811 and http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/copyright.htm

--Ethridgela (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Firestop Mortar
Are you sure you want to leave 2 identical pictures in the gallery? --Achim (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, my mistake, thanks. Kilmer-san (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)